For Britain’s sake, Brexit ultras on both sides need to calm down

Boris Johnson’s plan to end the current session of Parliament and introduce a new session with a Queen’s Speech was met with an extraordinary storm of hyperbole. The reaction to this “constitutional outrage”, as it was described first by the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, shows how overwrought political debate in Britain has become.

Calmer constitutional commentators, some of whom are critics of Johnson and opponents of a no-deal Brexit, pointed out that the Prime Minister was simply following parliamentary convention.

Previously, opponents of the Government expected that Parliament might be prorogued over the 31 October, to prevent MPs from voting for an extension to Article 50. Wrongfooted by Johnson’s less radical timetable, which wipes out only a few days off House of Commons’ business, they’ve unleashed the rhetoric that was prepared for a genuine suspension.

This explosion of hysteria comes just as negotiations with the EU over the Irish backstop have effectively reopened. Ironically, all the overheated language may make no-deal more likely, because a no confidence vote in the Prime Minister could result in an election that actually does prevent Parliament from sitting over the Brexit deadline.

While diehard Remainers might get the last thing they want because of their uncompromising behaviour, hardcore Leavers are behaving riskily too. A growing number of Brexiteers grumble that the Prime Minister is focused on removing the Northern Ireland backstop from the draft Withdrawal Agreement, rather than scrapping Theresa May’s deal altogether.

Speaking to the Telegraph, David Davis, the former Brexit Secretary, described a series of changes he wanted Johnson to negotiate: “I’d argue for tighter limits, timetable limits, sunset clauses on the European Court of Justice and things like that,” he said. “I would be insistent… that they make the bill — the £39 billion, the second half of it — contingent on progress on the future economic partnership.”

It’s hard to disagree that, ideally, these safeguards should be included in any final deal. However, EU leaders’ reluctance to renegotiate the draft only softened because Boris Johnson concentrated so narrowly on removing the backstop.

Don’t forget that opposition to Theresa May’s deal crystallised very specifically round the Northern Ireland protocol. It was that deal’s most obnoxious feature by far, because it literally and symbolically challenged the idea that Brexit would allow Britain to control its sovereign territory.

The rest of the agreement contains enough ambiguity and uncertainty to suggest that it might be a complicated, lengthy process for the UK to untangle itself properly from EU law and bureaucracy, or secure a trade deal — but then we knew that was likely right from the start. It is the backstop that sets out in detail the mechanisms through which Brussels plans to manage the UK and exercise direct authority over part of its territory.

There’s a justifiable suspicion that any agreement, no matter how favourable to Britain, would appal the least compromising Conservative Brexiteers, or the Spartans as they have taken to calling themselves. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum result, the idea that the UK should simply leave rather than negotiating its exit from the EU was more a cry of defiance than a serious political proposition. Now, just weeks away from that outcome, it starts to look like the least adulterated form of Brexit, while a deal seems like unacceptable compromise.

This way of thinking is rather appealing after three years of rancorous negotiations with Brussels and bitter name-calling between Leavers and Remainers. Yet, we mustn’t forget that the purpose of an agreement should be to avoid unnecessary disruption for the British people. The likely effects of a no-deal Brexit may be exaggerated, but the principle of leaving and then gradually withdrawing from the institutions and jurisdiction of the EU was overwhelmingly accepted from the start of the process.

If Boris persuades Brussels to axe the backstop — axe it genuinely, rather than repackaging it in a way that retains its worst features — and members of the ERG (European Reform Group, the most hardline Brexiteers) still vote against the Withdrawal Agreement, it will appear, not that they are principled, but that they are impossible to satisfy.

The Prime Minister hopes that he will come back after the Queen’s Speech with a deal that he can navigate through Parliament. He is likely to gain support from the DUP, so long as the Northern Ireland protocol has been effectively removed. He’ll also require that party’s backing to pass the Queen’s Speech, but talks to reach a new confidence and supply arrangement will go smoothly, if Boris can promise that Brexit will take place without compromising Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, or disrupting trade across the Irish border.

That is the most rosy scenario that Boris Johnson could imagine and it may well not happen. But the best way to ensure no-deal is for the Prime Minister’s opponents to continue to talk wildly about coups and accuse him of acting like a dictator, so that they’re obliged to bring down the Government and allow Brexit to take place during an election campaign.

The ultras on both sides seriously need to calm down.